Apple suppressed competitors in its App Store until it got caught, a lawsuit alleges.
Blix Inc, maker of BlueMail, is suing Apple for antitrust violations.
I’ve just skimmed that article, this is a marketing exercise from Blix. Have you read the article? Spammed full of marketing speak.
"Thats because Blix, unlike Microsofts Outlook and Slack, appeals to everyday consumers looking for more feature-rich alternatives to Apples bare-bones Mail app that comes preinstalled on iPhones.
And unlike Apples Mail app, Blix works across platforms including Android, Windows and Mac desktops.
That was part of the article, the lawsuit is just to promote the company I think.
What is love? Something like the above defense. 
Well… I can’t find the word Blix in this one:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/09/technology/apple-app-store-competition.html
This is not really news. It started to be reported around June if i recall. And the case Spotify laid out to the EU was pretty good. It would be naive to think the owner of the store would not have some undue influence on their own offerings, but what Spotify demonstrated was downright abusive. The EU takes forever to rule, but rest assured they will come down hard on Apple.
I don’t care about Blix, but the story about Sam Rowland’s photographic apps having to jump through hoops, and the unsubstantiated accusations of app spam by Apple, look terribly much to me like anti competitive practices.
The most that Apple should be concerned about (and even this is debatable) is the SAFETY/Security of an app. If a developer submits an app the duplicates functionally of an existing app (be it from Apple or someone else), it should be the CONSUMER who decides which he/she wants… Not Apple. In this regard Apple is a “store”, and if that store has 100 competing email apps, so be it.
And remembering this fact was what made me to repost the news here after reading it.
In many many ways, the App Stores area not a level playing field more than Amazon marketplace is. Their platform, their rules, as went as they are.
It is a common misconception that these platforms are a public service. In fact, far from it, they accept third party sellers only to use them as an additional source of income, in the most ruthless way.
Granted, without the MAS, the Windows Store, Huawei Gallery, Google’s Play Store, Amazon, I would probably sell much less. But there is a price to pay to jump on their web site.
Michel… I totally agree that is what the reality is… I’m saying that it shouldn’t be. Unless there was alternatives for iOS distribution, which there are not… And I don’t fault Apple charging a fee… but I do fault their anti-competitive manners
I don’t know in the US, but in Europe, the sentiment against GAFA is growing, precisely because of their anti competitive attitude. Unfortunately, Apple is far from being alone in it’s hegemonic ways.
That is true, but no one is required to use Amazon to sell online, however the only approved distribution for those wishing to sell iOS applications is MAS. So their bar is higher (same with Google play).
Indeed Apple’s iOS is a closed system. And that could be considered unfair. Although legally they are under no obligation to open distribution.
Android is kind of different. You can perfectly distribute apk on your own web site, but like macOS, you will have to set the system to accept non Google Play apps. The Play Store is not the only one, BTW. Huawei has it’s own Android app store, called “Gallery”.
I beleive there are legal challenges in progress to force that to change…
Apple has such a reserve of cash, they can afford the best lawyers. They can drag legal challenges for a looong time 
Not perhaps with the Challenge is coming from the United States Government
Im no my aware of any legal precedent that would force Apple to open up their distribution. At what point does a product become large enough that the manufacturer becomes required to allow users to install any software of their choosing? What about Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo with their consoles? How could one possibly define where the line is drawn? Plus there are first amendment rights, because code is speech and speech can not be compelled.
Im not saying its impossible, but Im not a lawyer and even I can see plenty of ways to challenge such a law.
Cook says that Apple is not a Monopoly as they don’t have an over-whelming share in any given market, Perhaps debately (a significant share in few to be sure). And others are angry because Apple charges 30% to be in their store.
I have no issue with either of those two issues… What I do have an issue with is (and Thom, yeah if Microsoft, Sony and Ninetendo allow 3rd party developers, then this counts for them too)… the fact that I (or any other developer) MUST use Apple as a distributor. And I’m even somewhat restricted in deploying to my own devices (have to refresh an install once a year)
And sorry, but the First Amendment has no application here (in my opinion). That applies only to what the GOVERNMENT says you can or cannot say, it does NOT apply to any other party (for example, Xojo can legally censor anything they want to (and they have) on this website without violating the 1st Amendment… because its a privately owned site)
Im aware of that, but this would be the government telling Apple they must write code to allow unverified apps to run on their devices. However, the wording could be adjusted to say something like IF you want to sell apps on your store, you must also allow them to come from outside your store. Then its not being forced so much as if you want to do A you must do B. Then Apple has the choice to just stop selling apps (which they wouldnt do) as opposed to simply being mandated to modify their software.
Yes, the console manufactures require their developers to jump through much more strict hoops than Apple requires its developers to.
I know its a slippery slope argument, but really where is the line drawn? Would Tesla be required to allow unverified apps on their heads up display? My Sonata has optional apps, would that one be required to? Smart TVs? Coffee makers?
Im personally not a fan of putting such a requirement on these companies. It doesnt matter that its Apple. It could be a company I hate, such as Facebook, and Id feel the same way. Apple makes a private device with their own software, for use by private citizens. If they want to enforce their walled garden, I believe they have the right to.
Again… “verification/notorzation” is NOT the same as also requireing I distribution via Apple MAS only.
As I stated above…
and I have no problem with that either… and only because there are nefarious actors in the world
but if the app is deemed safe/secure, then allow anyone anywhere to install it on their device.
There are alternatives to the App Store, though kind of confidential. Besides Cydia, well know from jail brakers and hackers, there a few options that actually do not require jailbreaking:
https://www.cydiacloud.com/alternative/